Politicians are slow learners

[DaveP]

Democrats gave voters a candidate they didn't want in Clinton, now Republicans have done the same with Moore, are any of them connected to public opinion???

If we have a future, then I think that people will look back on these centuries with the same incredulity over how we chose our politicians, as we look back on leeches being used for curing disease.

It seems to me that the best people stay out of politics, leaving only the power hungry, over ambitious and crooked to fight it out.
Would it even be possible for someone with honour, intelligence and integrity to make it to the top on merit alone?  Would any system allow that to happen?

DaveP

 

[volker]

Politicians just do what they're used to getting away with. The actual slow (or better no-) learners are the 48,4% that still voted for Moore. After everything that happened since the start of 2017, after everything that became known about him the last couple of months. Simply astonishing.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Democrats gave voters a candidate they didn't want in Clinton,

In fact the democrats pretty much wanted Hillary and she should have won easily if she worked a little harder. She took several blue states for granted and the rest is history. I was predicting she would win, and I'm glad I was wrong. 

now Republicans have done the same with Moore, are any of them connected to public opinion???

I am kind of glad that Moore lost, but agree he should have never run.  Trump initially supported Luther Strange for that seat, but the primary process picked Moore.

If we have a future, then I think that people will look back on these centuries with the same incredulity over how we chose our politicians, as we look back on leeches being used for curing disease.

This is a larger issue and we are in the early days of this cultural pivot concerning sexual behavior.

I see a parallel in how we criminalized drinking and driving decades ago, but the interaction between the sexes is far more complicated, and will take time to sort out.  Right now we are conflating "all" abusers with the worst among them (actual rapists).  This will work out in time, but lots to consider.  I worry that this may hurt women by restricting their access to prevent potential embarrassing situations.

I predicted there will be many more shoes to drop, the most recent is celebrity chef Mario Batali, resigning from his business. It seems the corporate sphere is quicker to flush these individuals once identified. A list of sex scandals in government dates back to Alexander Hamilton in 1797 (messing with some guys wife). Reportedly there are tens of cases in congress where taxpayer money was used to hush up abuses with secrecy required. I predict this secrecy will not survive the current pivot.

It seems to me that the best people stay out of politics,

nothing new, but there are always a small fraction making honest contributions.  Serving in government used to be something that only the successful wealthy could afford to do, now we have career politicians making a very good living from spending our money.

leaving only the power hungry, over ambitious and crooked to fight it out.

It is the nature of any source of power that wealthy and powerful will try to influence, control it. Again nothing new.

Would it even be possible for someone with honour, intelligence and integrity to make it to the top on merit alone?  Would any system allow that to happen?

DaveP

I have long argued that voters would never elect an honest politician that only spoke the truth. It is the voters that force their candidates to lie to them, or they don't get elected..  It is what it is, and our founders in their wisdom made legislation difficult while limiting the power of the federal government. We need to not lose sight of the original plan (constitution). 

I see another shift in how we apply modern morals to our past history, many things that were normal practice a few centuries ago are illegal and considered immoral now.  We should take care to not forget the positive aspects of these many historical figures.

JR

 

[DaveP]

Right now we are conflating "all" abusers with the worst among them (actual rapists).  This will work out in time, but lots to consider.

When I was at work in the sixties and seventies, there was a lot of "inappropriate" behaviour between the sexes, but it was mainly more middle aged women that were involved with this.  I put this down to their boring husbands?  Some of them used to banter with men until a "response" was obtained.  For example, a typist was carried out of the office and stuck bum first in a 45 gallon drum of cold water!  Women did a lot of boring repetitive jobs and I think it spiced their lives up a bit if I'm honest, no complaints were ever made.  This behaviour was in public and nothing like the Weinstein/Moore  affairs where they took advantage of their power and position.

As you say, it will have to be worked out over time.

DaveP

 

[dmp]

The really terrible accusations against Moore were preceded by him twice disregarding a lawful court order while serving as a judge, showing disdane for the Constitution and the rule of law, and being removed. He still won the primary. He still won the white male and white female vote by nearly 2/3 yesterday. Unbelievable.

Voters actually want very different politicians than they are getting. But still, for some reason, we still keep getting the extreme, corporate stooges that the big  money wants. They get people to just root for your team with propaganda and manipulative tactics. There is a tremendous amount of money being used to control public opinion and votes.

Here is a great commentary on the problem in politics (money) by the great Steve Van Zandt, of the E Street Band.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-van-zandt/democracy-in-america_b_1139463.html

He asks a great question: if spending unlimited money to influence politics is free speech, isn't the lack of money the lack of free speech?

Unfortunately, people still could elect good leaders, if they were engaged, informed, and active, but they overwhelmingly do not.

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
plato

 

[JohnRoberts]

The really terrible accusations against Moore were preceded by him twice disregarding a lawful court order while serving as a judge, showing disdane for the Constitution and the rule of law, and being removed. He still won the primary. He still won the white male and white female vote by nearly 2/3 yesterday. Unbelievable.

That's alabama for you...

Voters actually want very different politicians than they are getting. But still, for some reason, we still keep getting the extreme, corporate stooges that the big  money wants. They get people to just root for your team with propaganda and manipulative tactics. There is a tremendous amount of money being used to control public opinion and votes.

Unfortunately they get what they vote for...

Social media needs to be cleaned up WRT manufacturing sentiment. While this is a variant on the age old use of advertising to manipulate sentiment, but being new the laws do not yet require paid social media influence to contain the boilerplate "paid for by so and so campaign" Like conventional ads do....  We even have state actors buying political influence using social media without the public realizing (yet).

I expect changes by 2018 and more by 2020. 

Here is a great commentary on the problem in politics (money) by the great Steve Van Zandt, of the E Street Band.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-van-zandt/democracy-in-america_b_1139463.html

He asks a great question: if spending unlimited money to influence politics is free speech, isn't the lack of money the lack of free speech?

cute... a first amendment argument for wealth redistribution.  : : :

Unfortunately, people still could elect good leaders, if they were engaged, informed, and active, but they overwhelmingly do not.

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
plato

yes, not new, but social media is new and needs to be managed (regulated??) better. People will be surprised if/when they realize how much they are being manipulated.

JR

 

[dmp]

cute... a first amendment argument for wealth redistribution.  : : :

My take was a movement to get politician's to stop serving the big money, and start serving the people. He suggests a pledge that politician's can agree to (or not) saying they will work to
"eliminate all private finance from the electoral process, thusly restoring America to its democratic principles. I may take corporate, PAC, SuperPAC, or Chinese money to get elected or reelected (martyrdom accomplishes nothing), but upon my election I will make campaign finance elimination one of my immediate top priorities."

Right now the dialog is controlled by the money.

Nothing about wealth redistribution.

yes, not new, but social media is new and needs to be managed (regulated??) better. People will be surprised if/when they realize how much they are being manipulated.

The FCC net neutrality thing is a good example.  Thousands of fake comments were lodged with the FCC supporting the FCC (Republican) change. It appears like a significant majority of people agree on net neutrality being best for consumers, while the opposite is being shoved down our throats by ISP bribery and corrupt Republicans.

 

[tands]

I can't believe the miserable little f**ker rode a horse to go to cast his vote, way to get black folks out to vote, huh JR? The ones who beat him. 

The really terrible accusations against Moore

Roy Moore in 2011: Getting rid of constitutional amendments after the 10th would 'eliminate many problems'

13th amendment: ended slavery
14th amendment: guarantees equal protection
15th amendment: prevents voter discrimination
19th amendment: gives women the right to vote

https://twitter.com/natemcdermott/status/939995538216423424

Language nsfw.

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/940792008062459904

 

[JohnRoberts]

My take was a movement to get politician's to stop serving the big money, and start serving the people. He suggests a pledge that politician's can agree to (or not) saying they will work to
"eliminate all private finance from the electoral process, thusly restoring America to its democratic principles. I may take corporate, PAC, SuperPAC, or Chinese money to get elected or reelected (martyrdom accomplishes nothing), but upon my election I will make campaign finance elimination one of my immediate top priorities."

There is a speech issue here, but I am also concerned about the power of government worker unions...  I agree they all need to be knocked down a notch or two, or more.

Identifying their activity on social media will be a start.

Term limits would help, maybe only allow multi-millionaires to run (like a number of our founders) who are uninterested in monetary gain, but power is always attractive to mere mortals.

Right now the dialog is controlled by the money.

good luck changing that.... 

I thought it was amusing when I saw reports that George Soros was giving all his wealth to charity (his own charity "Open Society Foundation" ) so he still gets to control how his money is spent.

Nothing about wealth redistribution.

The FCC net neutrality thing is a good example.  Thousands of fake comments were lodged with the FCC supporting the FCC (Republican) change. It appears like a significant majority of people agree on net neutrality being best for consumers, while the opposite is being shoved down our throats by ISP bribery and corrupt Republicans.

Yes I saw that article...  The fake comments were technology developed to game advertising clicks (to cheat web advertisers), so bots of some sort, not purely big money, but a technology being used, probably by both (actually more than just our two parties).  Something like only 10% of the comments were real.

JR

 

[tands]

This narrative about Black voters "saving" Alabama would imply that majority of white voters--the majority of people in the state--wanted to be "saved" from Moore. They didn't. Black voters protected themselves

It's a bit problematic to frame AL election results as Black people "saving AL" when they were actually protecting themselves by pushing back against systemic racism within their state

"Black people saved Alabama!"

Who did they save Alabama from? Who was putting AL in harm's way that it needed to be saved & why?

The image of the "magical negro" or the "mammy" figure who rescues white people in their time of distress is a very old racist trope that celebrates Black people for being able to save "whiteness" from its self-destructive impulses

The central focus of this racist trope is still whiteness & the idea that Black people are made noble in sacrificing themselves for the benefit of a sympathetic white figure.

Remember that race is a social & political construct based on one's ancestry but largely enforced according to one's physical appearance so we can unpack the psychosis of all of this

"Hooray! Black people saved the day!" does not automatically translate into "...therefore we recognize their oppression & wish to end the culture of white supremacy." So folks who are legit anti-racist, remain vigilant

Framing AL election result as Black voters "saving AL" instead of acknowledging it as Black voters protecting themselves from the ramping up of a racist police state helps us avoid discussing the reality of the racist police state.

Instead of examining the ramping up of the racist police state that has occurred in recent years & how Black ppl are responding, we can imagine AL as a strange land disconnected from USA where good Black people save America™ from uniquely racist white people

Had Moore won last night, the focus still wouldn't have been on the ramping up of the racist police state. It would've instead centered on blaming Black voters for not sufficiently overcoming the majority white vote & systemic racism

In either case, the purpose for America's racial imagining is to place the burden for moral redemption on the backs of Black people while allowing the image of "whiteness" to remain blameless & without scrutiny

This is how white supremacy operates as oppressive power structure: whites actively construct anti-Black institutions & policies while actively denying they are doing it b/c to do otherwise wld b to admit there is no racial superiority, only racism

The active role whites play in maintaining racism (voting for Trump & Moore, for ex) has to be denied in order to maintain the myth that white dominance of wealth & power is the byproduct of a natural superiority & not brutal violence

https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/940932420416737281

 

[DaveP]

He asks a great question: if spending unlimited money to influence politics is free speech, isn't the lack of money the lack of free speech?

+1

Regarding social media:
We were influenced/controlled by newspapers initially, then ads and programs on radio and TV.

Why should we be surprised that the internet and social media is now being used for the same purpose?

It must be very frustrating for big money and big media, after spending all that cash to control what we hear and see, to find that the younger generation no longer listens to their toys.  As JR says, watch that space.

DaveP

 

[DaveP]

Bernie Sanders = Luther Strange.

Politicians are slow learners

DaveP

 

[tands]

;D

https://twitter.com/IPM_Tweets/status/941060268645330944

 

[JohnRoberts]

+1

Regarding social media:
We were influenced/controlled by newspapers initially, then ads and programs on radio and TV.

Why should we be surprised that the internet and social media is now being used for the same purpose?

It must be very frustrating for big money and big media, after spending all that cash to control what we hear and see, to find that the younger generation no longer listens to their toys.  As JR says, watch that space.

DaveP

One distinction I would offer, the first amendment guarantees free speech, which means we are free to hold different ideas and express them... it does not infer some guarantee to influence over the thoughts of others.

The business of selling political influence is maybe the second oldest business, right after the first.

The benefits of wealth are several and this is just one of them. Lots of science fiction looking at this in some hypothetical (better) future without a compelling solution AFAIK.

JR

 

[tands]

One of the best parts of being a commie and not a liberal is that you're no longer living in a constant state of confusion and disbelief.

https://twitter.com/KiranOpal/status/941041630827745287